On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 11:25:37AM +0530, [email protected] wrote: > +static void gen_buffer_destroy(struct drm_i915_private *i915) > +{ > + mutex_lock(&i915->dev->struct_mutex); > + vunmap(i915->gen_pmu.buffer.addr); > + i915_gem_object_ggtt_unpin(i915->gen_pmu.buffer.obj); > + drm_gem_object_unreference(&i915->gen_pmu.buffer.obj->base); > + mutex_unlock(&i915->dev->struct_mutex); > + > + spin_lock(&i915->gen_pmu.lock); > + i915->gen_pmu.buffer.obj = NULL; > + i915->gen_pmu.buffer.gtt_offset = 0; > + i915->gen_pmu.buffer.addr = NULL; > + spin_unlock(&i915->gen_pmu.lock);
This ordering looks scary. At the very least it deserves a comment to explain why it is safe. So what stops a second event being created while the first is being destroyed? I presume the perf events are exclusive? Or a refcounted singleton? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
